Of the two essential components of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi’s leadership style, his broad outlook is easier to delineate than his personality traits. This is so in his case as in every other. Human personality is elusive for a variety of reasons. No one can know a person intimately enough, not even oneself. The same traits can produce a large number of permutations and combinations. Psychology is still an infant science, if it is a science at all. These are among the reasons why psycho-history enjoys such a low reputation among scholars. Even so, anyone wanting to define Mr. Rajiv Gandhi’s leadership style must attempt a personality sketch of him.
When Mr Rajiv Gandhi first emerged in full public view, on the occasion of his mother’s assassination, one thing that was most striking about him was his calm, almost effortless, self-control and his dignified bearing. He maintained this image of himself throughout that hectic and dangerous period, when he could have barely snatched a couple of hours of rest. He made the same impression on a group of editors when they met him a few weeks later, when the elections to the Lok Sabha had already been announced and an unprecedented advertisement campaign in favour of the Congress party, under a new youthful leader, had been launched by a hand-picked ad agency. This was an innovation in the history of the grand old party which spoke of the new “political” culture which Mr. Gandhi and his close aides had brought in, with them.
The scene was, in one sense, unfamiliar, despite the otherwise familiar surroundings and by now familiar face, thanks to television. Armed men kept an eye on assembled editors as if even such individuals could no longer be trusted not to try something so foul and daring as an attempt on the life of the Prime Minister in his own office. But if any editor found the presence of armed men in the Prime Minister’s office odd, he kept his feelings or forebodings to himself. The editors were too anxious to be reassured, to allow any kind of inconvenient question to cross their minds. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, too, rose to the occasion. He behaved as if he was born to that awesome office. Those who had witnessed Pandit Nehru and Mrs. Indira Gandhi ascend to that position, recalled that they had taken a long time to demonstrate such self-confidence. If Mr. Rajiv Gandhi had any sense of inadequacy or fear, he did not show it.
Plane Journey
Mr. Pranab Mukherjee has recalled that on their plane journey from Calcutta to Delhi, on that fateful October 31, 1984, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi asked him if in his view, he (Rajiv) could measure up to the responsibilities of the office of Prime Minister. Judging by his subsequent behaviour, this was not an expression of self-doubt; it was a polite way of breaking tension and making some conversation. It also spoke of his capacity to cope with a great personal tragedy with ease. His conversation with Amitabh Bachchan on his arrival in Delhi, as reported by Mr. Mark Tully and Mr. Satish Jacob in their book “Amritsar”, speaks of the same quality of self-possession. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi told Bachchan before he saw the body of his dead mother: “When I was in Calcutta I met someone who said he had a cure for your illness. I want you to meet him. I will tell you about him.”
Some of those who have known Mr. Rajiv Gandhi in school, testify that he was self-possessed and rather uncommunicative even then. Perhaps he was born that way. Perhaps the turbulence in the family taught him to keep his counsel to himself. Self-possession is both natural and cultivated.
The same is in a sense true of self-confidence. One can be born with it and one can cultivate it, or to put more accurately, one grows into it, with success. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi had had no success worth speaking about. He had been a mediocre student and an ordinary pilot. He had not been a good sportsman which fact could have compensated for his poor academic record. In plain terms, he had not shown leadership qualities by the time Mrs. Indira Gandhi brought him into politics, on the death of Mr. Sanjay Gandhi. So it is legitimate to ask: what was the self-confidence he displayed within days of being suddenly sworn in as Prime Minister based on?
Learnt Politics
It can well be argued that Mr. Rajiv Gandhi had learnt politics and the art of leadership at the knee of his mother, just as she had at her father’s. While this possibility should not be ruled out, some points may be noted. Unlike Pandit Nehru, Mrs. Indira Gandhi was not articulate; she did not like discussing politics among friends and relations, though she was a consummate practitioner of the art; unlike Pandit Nehru in relation to her, she did not think of political careers for her sons. Mr. Sanjay Gandhi forced his way into politics in 1975, when Mrs Indira Gandhi was facing a personal crisis as a result of the Allahabad high court’s judgment unseating her as an MP. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi was indifferent to politics; his whole life before 1980 is proof of this indifference; his occasional remarks to family friends which are now quoted in private related to his younger brother’s activities which he disapproved; on the testimony of Marie Seton, a personal friend of Nehru and Indira Gandhi, he knew of his maternal great grandfather’s and maternal grandfather’s roles in the freedom struggle only when he proofread her biography of Nehru.
Asiad was Mr. Rajiv Gandhi’s first major assignment, after his entry into politics. In this enterprise, he demonstrated considerable physical stamina and certain managerial skills. That apart, as an MP and one of the general secretaries of the All India Congress Committee, he exercised, by virtue of being his mother’s son, enormous powers, which he had not acquired for himself and for which he was not accountable. Both these experiences could have confirmed him, in what might be called an administrative and managerial view of politics. Two facts may be recalled in support of this proposition, even if these cannot be said to clinch the issue.
First, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi brought computers into the Congress party’s affairs, as if these could be a substitute for extensive personal contacts and knowledge of who had done what to who, why, when and how. And Mr. Rajiv Gandhi sought to introduce this impersonal (machine) element in a country where life itself turns on personal relations (bhaichara or biraderi).
Incidentally, as Prime Minister and Congress president in 1985, he got prepared an elaborate questionnaire which party MPs were required to fill, so that the “information” thus collected could be fed into a computer. Many MP’s, despite their proverbial docility and desire to please the leader, were so angered by this move that they were reported to have refused to comply. It is difficult to recall another example of similar resistance in the Congress since 1978.
Secondly, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and his aides arranged, when Mrs. Indira Gandhi was still alive, to “interview” thousands of Congressmen, including union cabinet ministers and chief ministers, in order to choose party nominees for the then forthcoming elections to the Lok Sabha and various Vidhan Sabhas. This was another demonstration of their lack of respect for age, seniority and experience, and of appreciation of the importance of the institutional procedures whereby such screening begins at the district level and moves up to the centre via the state level. This development too was unprecedented. Even Mr. Sanjay Gandhi had not “so interviewed” senior party leaders.
It, of course, goes without saying that Mrs. Gandhi was, at least partly, responsible for reducing the Congress party to such a state of servility that, first, Mr. Sanjay Gandhi and then Mr. Rajiv Gandhi could easily lord over it. But that issue is not pertinent in the present context. Similarly, it is not relevant for us to discuss whether or not her handling of Congressmen and the Congress organisation was influenced by dynastic considerations.
Ready Surrender
Right now we are interested in trying to find out whether the ready surrender by Congress leaders, including union ministers and chief ministers, to Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, when he was just an ordinary M.P. and one of the several general secretaries of the AICC could have confirmed him in his managerial view of politics and his contempt for the party. Clearly the relevant evidence cannot be conclusive. It can only be suggestive, which the evidence cited above is. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi was not as rude as his late younger brother had been. But he was equally confident of being able to deal with men and matters of whom and of which he had little knowledge and experience.
Some general propositions may be advanced in this connection. Most business in India, including large corporations, remains family business. The standard approach there is the same, which in Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s and Mr. Rajiv Gandhi’s case is called dynastic. The “dynastic” principle has come to be widely accepted in Indian politics as a whole. Witness the number of young men and women who have been elected to various legislatures as replacements of their fathers and husbands; in the past leaders sought to rehabilitate only the widows of deceased colleagues. Managers, generally, are not known for their knowledge of politics and society. As a rule, they read little that is serious. Comic strips have become the most popular reading material among the middle class youth. Much of this youth is impatient of tradition and ignorant of history. It would be a small miracle if Mr. Rajiv Gandhi has escaped the consequences of this upper crust Indian milieu in which he grew up.
(To be concluded)
The Times of India, 26 February 1986